Tesla owners like this backdoor ability. Indeed, some people consistently unlock their car with their phone (via the cloud), I hear. In this case though some p

Tesla owners like this backdoor ability. Indeed, some people consistently unlock their car with their phone (via the cloud), I hear. In this case though some people are objecting to who the "owner" is. And I think that the people objecting are wrong. And (I assume) so does the law. Your car is not protected from the bank or the government by its keys, but by the law. Same as your house. If you lose your house legally, you'll lose your house physically. The fact that the bank (indirectly) called Tesla instead of a locksmith is to me irrelevant in this case. Now, in the abstract, is it uncomfortable that the car manufacturer can unlock your car? Sure. But we knew that they could. How else could your phone do it. I hate to break it to you, but your telco can tap your phoneline. The bus can track your public transport movement. I can follow you on the street. Your power company can effectively track when you're away on vacation. This case was not abuse. And it doesn't even have to be cloud-connected to enable this kind of owner-depriving abuse. As soon as cars got their first microchip they could have gotten firmware that would brick the car unless it went to an authorized dealer twice a year for "reset". I'm not saying there aren't dangers, but this case isn't it.